Under the present system of taxation, people like Warren Buffett pay a 15% tax rate on significant portions of their income. Under my tax system/proposal, these same individuals would pay a 40% rate on ALL of their income. Any damned body who sees this FACT and still says that I am a pro-rich individual has to be either one of two things, people. They either have to be stupid or delusional (I guess that they could be both and that would constitute a third possibility). I mean, I hate to be so God damned blunt about it but it is what it is, for Christ.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Your tax system/proposal ISN'T UNDER CONSIDERATION. Everyone talking about eliminating the corporate income tax is NOT (I REPEAT, NOT) also saying capital gains taxes should be raised! In fact, they are saying they want to lower both!
I brought this up in the previous comment thread but you ignored me. I guess you're just to stupid/dense/delusional to comprehend that fact.
Now, off to write a post for my blog. I'll think I'll call it "Will Hart is a stupid dumb delusional pro-rich moron".
I'm debating MY proposal, idiot, not the Republicans'. Just like you are debating YOUR proposal (and not the Democrats). You are constantly, shamelessly and moronically conflating me with the right and I'm really getting fucking sick of it. You said that I am pro-rich when I have said REPEATEDLY to your idiotic self that I am PRO the top rates going back to 40% AND the capital gains rate being the same as regular income. How much more clearly I can state this, I have no idea - but it doesn't seem to be sinking in AT ALL.
I am a liberal. Will's proposal is a liberal proposal. No self-respecting conservative would agree to it and lots of liberals would love it.
John Myste: lots of liberals would love it.
Pro-corporate Liberals? They're be even worse than the third-way Liberals... if they existed. Unfortunately what you're describing are FORMER Liberals (or Liberals who were never liberal to begin with).
I agree, Will. Your proposal is not pro-rich. No offense, but it is pro-big corporate business.
Dervish, the effective tax rate average of mufti-millionairs hovers around very low numbers. I pay a much higher rate than they do. An actual 40% would be a huge jump. No, I am not going to go dig up the evidence. I will leave that to you.
John said: "No self-respecting conservative would agree to it and lots of liberals would love it."
Perhaps I am not any sort of self-respecting conservative.... because I see a lot of merit it.
A lot of it is because Will has a record for pragmatism. His motives are sound. He doesn't have what some have... a hellbent "destroy the rich" vendetta, regardless of the cost.
dmarks: He doesn't have what some have... a hellbent "destroy the rich" vendetta, regardless of the cost.
Who has that vendetta? Certainly nobody that has ever posted on this blog. Surely those people are such an insignificant minority that they are not at all worth mentioning.
WD: I was thinking of you. I remember earlier in a discussion related to free speech, you said how it was necessary to cut down the rich and corporations in order to keep their money from taking over politics. Is this a fair paraphrase?
dmarks: ...you said how it was necessary to cut down the rich and corporations... is this a fair paraphrase?
"Cut down"? No, I never said anything even remotely close to that. I do not wish to "cut down" or "destroy" anyone.
Jerry, maybe it IS pro-business (I actually like profits and want them to go up). But I sure as hell go after the managers and executives of these businesses when they cash in all of those stock options (to the tune of a tidy 40%) of theirs. And isn't THAT the real bottom-line here; keeping businesses strong and competitive while also getting those individuals who can afford to pay TO PAY?
No, I would rather see the companies pay. The end result is the same, but the burden then is on them, not us.
John and dmarks, you do know, don't you, that by agreeing with me, you're now officially a part of the "non-realty based blogosphere"? Welcome aboard, I guess. LOL
I guess that we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Jerry. It sounds like we may in fact have a similar goal (a fairer and more equitable tax code). We just have a different pathway to get there.
I never wanted to be any place else, Will. Those who own the truth exist on either side of non-reality, and the truth they own is the complete opposite of each other's truth.
Non-reality is a good place to live.
Reality is painful, which explains why those who own it get so angry.
amen, bra.
dmarks: ...you said how it was necessary to cut down the rich and corporations... is this a fair paraphrase?
I agree with Robert Reich who said, "My position is that even the rich will stand to do better if they have a smaller share of an economy that's growing very fast than if they have a big share of an economy that's basically static".
Mr. Reich advocates a top tax rate of 70 percent. Not because he wants to "cut down" the rich, but because it will benefit the economy. I vociferously support raising taxes on the wealthy for that reason, NOT because I dream of "nailing those miserable executives and managers that we all seem to despise these days".
That has nothing to do with it.
My interest is not in being fair to the rich. I really don't care about the rich. As long as they are rich, they are fine.
My only interest is in the non-rich, so...
I am thinking maybe a 99.9 percent tax on the rich is appropriate. Can you imagine how well the economy would do then?
The rich would work even harder to make up their sudden income deficit and the little man would become rich. The little man would then be taxed 99.9 percent, making even smaller people wealthy. Pretty soon poverty as we know it would be completely eliminated.
We would all be taxed 99.9 %, at which time, we would do business elsewhere. As rich men, we don’t have to take that.
70%?! It's too low.
Excellent devil's advocacy, John. And, really, Mr. Reich should know that a 77.65% top tax rate (when in fact you figure in the removal of the SS cap) today is NOT the same as a 77.65% tax rate would have been 50 years ago. The BIPARTISAN 1986 Tax Reform Act got rid of a lot of loopholes and deductions. People never really paid that 90%. You do know that, right, wd?
Dervish,
I am a firm liberal. If you had seen my tax debates all over the web, I don't think you would doubt.
Currently the top marginal rate of 35% (15% on long term capital gains), gets effectively paid at around 14% - 19%, depending on whom you place your faith. Of course, my personal effective tax rate is MUCH higher than either of those numbers or anything between. I am more concerned with the poor than I am with middle class for perfectly impractical reasons. While I think it is unjust that I, a middle class wage earner, pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes, I am more annoyed at the plight of the poor and I am more than willing to pay more if in the end, those who truly are poor pay less.
Let's assume that the effective (actually paid) top marginal rate is somewhere under 20% (It is less), but let's pretend it just under 20%. If that were the case and we simplified the tax code, perhaps removed corporate taxation (perhaps not), and slightly raised the top marginal rate, while removing all incentives and loopholes, we would more than double the taxes actually collected from the rich. 40% is twice 20%.
Advocating that we double taxes collected on the rich in a single blow is not a conservative or a moderate policy. It is a liberal policy. I do not want to cut anything from education, social programs, etc. The only cuts I want are in national defense.
I want to double the taxes collected from the rich.
I want to balance the budget and keep it balanced by using the top marginal tax rate as the level that gets adjusted to make it happen.
What part of that plan do you think would appeal to conservatives?
It is irrational to attempt to suddenly try to collect 70% in taxes on any portion of income. It would be devastating to the American economy and is something no rational person wants, not out of compassion for the rich (I have none, though this would be tantamount to theft, but that is another issue), but out of compassion for the American economy. The rich have never paid this. The rich will never pay this (and yes, I have a good understanding of how taxation works and who is paying federal taxes. If you doubt this, see my long explanation of just that, in rebuttal to a conservative here: Fair Taxation.
[Continued … ]
[Conclusion of Response to Dervish]
If you doubt my understanding of the concept of tax burden and fairness and how it grossly weighted against the poor, see my very aggressive ultra-far-left-liberal argument to that effect here: Grandpa's Coins.
You see, one can be ultra-liberal and also remain rational. The two are not mutually exclusive, as some liberal arguments tend to suggest. All of my philosophy and policy positions are weighted toward making things as comfortable for the have-nots and have no real concern for the welfare of the haves, which is an utterly biased liberal stance. I believe the haves are not in dire need, and their position, whether it is somewhat better or worse, is always good. There are real people in real need, and until that problem is solved, I find the rest to be personally irrelevant.
The Myste plan to deal with the “debt crisis” was just about as liberal as a plan can get. I posted it on an ultra-liberal news site. Not a single liberal criticized it. Conservatives came out swinging. More evidence that I am not a moderate and that I am a proud card-carrying liberal. Here it is: National Debt Unicorn.
So I cannot agree that I am a conservative or a moderate. Liberals often accuse me of this when I fail to support the irrational arguments they make in protest of conservative nonsense. My goals are the goals of liberals. My policies would make any liberal worth his weight in salt as pleased as punch.
I can evaluate each argument on the merits of the argument instead of on the merits of the philosophy and goals of the one making the argument. Your goals and mine, Dervish, are very similar. We simply disagree about the most practical way to get there. That fact does not make me a conservative.
[Proof that I am liberal complete]
Oh, and one more thing: I never would vote for anything other than the democratic candidate. I cannot imagine an exception to this under any circumstances.
How liberal of me.
Criminy! I am not just a liberal, I am a fanatic liberal. I did not realize that about myself until you made me think about it.
My misunderstanding must be due to the denseness of my progressivity, which apparently you, John Myste, do not suffer from. Bravo!
As well as my fanaticism... don't forget my fanaticism.
However, and I think this is very important, it appears as though Robert Reich suffers from the same fanaticism... because it was he I was citing when I said a 70 percent upper rate would be totally bitchin'.
Which makes me wonder why Will keeps citing him in support of his "progressive" (according to him) change to the tax code. This idea of Robert Reich's to abolish corporate taxes came from the same fanatical brain that also produced the idea to raise the upper rate to 70 percent.
Why is Will so eager to embrace an idea that originated with a fanatic?
John, wd is one of those individuals who thinks that if you don't buy 100% the progressive vision, you're somehow an enabler of the right. And it's absurd. I just put forth a fresh proposal that would probably be more burdensome on the rich than the system in place during the Clinton era. But, because it has a doing away with the corporate tax (a tax that hurts many middle class folks in their pension and whole life insurance policies), he gets all panicky and calls me a corporatist. It's an almost insane form of discourse when you have to engage this guy. I mean, he just tried to tie me at the hip with Michele Bachamann, for Christ.
wd, I brought up Mr. Reich to show you that even somebody as progressive as him sees how anachronistic this concept is.
Dervish,
Why is Will so eager to embrace an idea that originated with a fanatic?
I don't think Will considers an idea valid or invalid based on who originated it.
However, and I think this is very important, it appears as though Robert Reich suffers from the same fanaticism... because it was he I was citing when I said a 70 percent upper rate would be totally bitchin'.
I also don't evaluate an idea based on who came up with it. What Robert Reich believes is not persuasive unless a persuasive argument accompanies it.
The important thing to remember is that I am a die-hard liberal who argues the liberal cause whenever I have a chance, as the three citations will help confirm. I do not, however, intentionally use false arguments, fallacious argument, or biased arguments, even if they are talking points of most of my liberal brethren. Weak arguments that violate the rules of critical thinking do not further the liberal cause. Instead, they give conservatives legitimate targets and make them truly think liberals are wacky. Conservatives make the same strategic mistake in trying to sell their arguments. The mistake works when strengthening your base, but they make arguments totally unpersuasive to anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.
Also, I do not subscribe to an argument, just because it is a liberal argument. Like most conservative arguments, most liberal arguments are filled with fallacy and bias. When I detect this, I reject the argument, even when I agree with the conclusions.
Also, often, I reject the conclusion, but I almost always agree with the liberal goal that causes the liberal to make the bad argument and from it draw a bad conclusion. (I am not referring to you or any other liberal, per se, but just liberals in general).
If it helps, conservatives certainly don't make better arguments than liberals. They often make worse ones, and even when they don't they have the disadvantage of drawing the wrong conclusion very predictably.
Wrong, from my biased perspective, anyway.
I hereby accept your concession on the point that I am liberal and I thank you for it, my brother.
Will: ...he gets all panicky and calls me a corporatist. ...he just tried to tie me at the hip with Michele Bachamann, for Christ.
What did I get "panicky" in regards to? That lawmakers in Washington who read your blog decide to run with your proposal? How deluded is that?
The Michele Bachmann comment was a JOKE.
"If not a Republican then you must be a Moderate. No way you're a liberal."
Will's a liberal on several of the most major hot button political issues. The ones that divide liberals from conservatives. Such a claim that he's liberal isn't "no way", and deserves consideration. Perhaps before rejecting it, of course. But there's evidence there.
DMarks,
Dervish was mistaking me for "not a liberal," not Will.
Post a Comment